What I would like to see in Sony's new flagship camera...

I always liked the idea of the Sony a77 SLT camera. I became a convert to the cult of the electronic viewfinder when the Olympus EP2 hit the market along with the very good VF-2 electronic viewfinder accessory. When I first tested an a77 I was infatuated with their built in version of the EVF.  It's quite good.  I also like the Sony a77 menu, the button placement and the feel of the body.

It took a bit of time to get used to using the EVF all the time. Especially for action. But as I've used the camera I've gotten comfortable with it.  I'd say it takes a month of daily use before the camera system becomes as transparent as the traditional style of camera that we've become used to over years and years of use.

Some things could use improvement. I wish the EVF didn't get noisy in low light, like when I use the camera to make portraits and I'm using weak, 100 watt modeling lights in my big strobes.  And I wish the finder had absolutely zero time lag from frame to frame. I wish the files were less noisy at 3200 ISO.  But to my mind none of these things are "deal stoppers."  Not for a minute.  Because what the camera does well it does very well.

Above is a reduced size file from the a77 and its 16-50mm lens. I shot it at 100 ISO yesterday afternoon while I was looking around for a path to a railroad track bridge.  The sky looked cool and it was a quick shot.  Just a scribble in my visual notebook.  But I've looked at the shot two or three times today while sitting at my computer doing post processing and I've decided I like it.  A lot.

The a77 does most things very well.  The exposure straight out of camera (using autoexposure and matrix metering) is much more accurate much more of the time than my Canon 5Dmk2 ever was. Maybe it's the fact that I can correct it as I see the image come up for pre-chimping in the finder.  After a few months of using the camera those corrections have become subconscious.  They are now part of the flow.

I use the camera in manual and in aperture priority.  I know which wheels make which magic.

And now that I've come to understand the camera the files are getting better and better. I like shooting at ISO 50-200 because the files are very detailed and have a delicious dynamic range.  As good as any camera I've used and much better than most.  In fact, the performance at lower ISO's and the great EVF are the two things that have kept me from running out and buying an OMD EM-5 even though the gear maniac part of my brain is begging me to raid the cookie jar and just do it.

Lately I've been thinking just the opposite thoughts.  I've been wondering whether my admiration for the micro four thirds cameras was the result of my  brain being wired to take advantage of EVFs in a way that is different and more inspiring than working with regular OVF (optical view finders).  After working with my EP3 and some good lenses today, alongside my a77's I've almost convinced myself to slim down my m4:3 collection in order to get ready for the Sony flagship camera that's rumored to be announced right before PhotoKina in September.  For all the insanely literal readers: please note that I said, "ALMOST."

The reason is that the better EVF in the Sony makes making the images feel more direct.

So, here we are in late July and I'm thinking about what Sony might do.  Judging by my inside sources I'm pretty certain that Sony is on the cusp of introducing their next generation full frame camera.  When I spoke with a U.S. Sony employee in a position to know, earlier this Summer, he would only say that they were in final development and couldn't decide between a 36 megapixel sensor and a vastly improved (over the a900 and a850) 24 megapixel sensor.  He wouldn't or couldn't divulge anything else.

If Sony is listening here's what I want:

I want this camera to be a full frame camera.  I think we're going to get that. I don't have anything against the smaller format cameras but I do think there are optical differences that I like. Most people want a full frame camera to better use wide angle lenses but I don't think that's an issue here as there are very few good wide angle lenses in Sony's line up at the moment.  I want full frame to do portraits with the pretty little 85mm 2.8 lens which I've named "the wasp."  It's small and light but it packs a sting it's so sharp.  And I'm interested to see just how good the performance of the 70-200 might be on a new and improved body.

I would like for Sony to ignore the people who are opinionated about finders and basically say that we'll pry their fingers off the OVF cameras only after they've expired. I'm certain that if 95% of these people tried an EVF for a week they would never want to go back.  The information on the screen and the real time feedback loop is just too rich to ignore.  The camera should have a fixed mirror like the other SLT cameras. I want the EVF and you will too.  Maybe in this iteration we'll see an even faster refresh rate and higher screen resolution.  In a pinch I'll happily settle for the same EVF that's in the a77 over a traditional (no matter how awesome) optical viewfinder.

I can't stress this next point strongly enough. I want Sony to use the same NPH-500 battery they've used in the a900, a850, a77 and a65 cameras. A customer is much happier if they only have to stock one battery type and one charger type.  I have six.  I don't want to change again just for the pleasure of adding financial ingots to their coffers.  Some people feel they need more juice?  They should get a grip.  Sony should make one and put a big battery in it and sell it for a decent price to all those people who think they need to fire off 5000 shots in a row without taking a breath or changing the power source.

I read on a forum that some people are already angry with Sony over the rumor that the camera will have two SD slots and won't make use of either compact flash cards or XQD cards.  To this I say, "Bravo."  I personally like SD cards.  They are fast enough, very resilient and amazingly cheap these days.  I'll gladly exchange a faster write speed for ten times the storage....  Put me down as "Yes" for two SD cards as long as their use can be programmed.  I'd love to have the ability to do raw on one card and Jpegs on the other.  Or to do redundant back-up.  Or to put stills on one card and video on the other.  Finally, I'd like setting that allows me to put two cards in the slots and then start shooting to the first card and when it fills up to automatically switch to the second card without having to stop.

Hey Sony, if you are having problems deciding on a sensor here's what I think:  24 megapixels is just fine as long as they are "kick ass" megapixels.  Throttle back on pixel envy and give us a really clean imaging sensor at 24 that gives us richly detailed images with  high dynamic range at low ISOs while also giving us a really nice, really clean file all the way up to at least 6400.  I'm sure you guys can make a nice 36 meg sensor but I'm going to bet that a ultra-sweet 24 meg sensor makes more sense and gives you more generous engineering parameters within which to succeed.  As the pixels get smaller the detail seems to get crunchier.  I want detail that's more natural.

You guys are really, really good at making pro video cameras.  Can we please have three additions to the video basket of goodies in the new FF camera?  You have to ask?  Really?  Okay, here you go:  First, you need to let us have manual control of the microphone sound levels. We might ask for it and never use it but that's not your concern.  I really want to see the little graphical bars shoot over to one side of the meter when my actor coughs, burps or screams.  But seriously, I want to make sure my audio is recorded at the right levels.  We can rehearse and set it but we can't set it if you don't put it on the menu.  While you are at it would you please enable manual level controls on the a77 via firmware? I'm sure the capability is sleeping somewhere in the camera's guts...

Next I really want you to put in a headphone jack. I want to put on a pair of enclosed headphones and hear what I'm getting when I record audio with my video.  Better yet, I can run the headphones to the sound guy and he can listen for problems.  But if I don't get a headphone jack I'm right back to using an outboard mixer and that adds $400+ to the system purchase price and a major pain in the butt when it comes to the video production experience.

Finally, in the video arena, it would be really cool if you could output uncompressed or raw video via HDMI or a Thunderbolt connection.  Then we can buy a couple of these cameras and head out the door to make the movie from my novel before the book even comes out. This camera should make film makers cry tears of joy...

Save yourselves a bit of money.  You can make the camera out of polycarbonate over a metal frame. I don't need macho metal everywhere and neither does anyone else. As long as you can weather seal the beast lab tests will probably prove that metal transfers more shock to the inner guts than "plastic" and that plastic wears even better than metal.  Want to make Nikon and Canon pros cry? Consider making the outer shell out of carbon fiber.  Really.  It's the one material that men will choose over just about anything but titanium.  And most of them wouldn't know the difference in performance if it was writ large in 20 point type.  It would give you guys something to beat on in the advertising.

Steal a page from Nikon's book when it comes to lens compatibility.  Let us use our groovy/cool DT lenses on the body in a crop mode. I like that 16-50 a lot and I'd like to be able to use it across sensor sizes.  I promise I'll buy a real wide angle to put on the big camera but I'd like the system to be all terrain in a pinch.

Now, be real heros and price this thing at $2499 US.  Launch it the minute Photokina closes and start stocking them up now so that everyone on the short lists can get shooting in the first month after the announcement.

I know you guys think you can market like gangbusters but I have one last suggestion for you.  Take couple hundred of these cameras and put them in the hands of pros who are already shooting your a77 products.  An honest blog review with real world samples trumps everything you can put in an ad.  Really.  If you get people to use the camera and you have a place to share their experiences you'll quickly have a raging success or....you'll discover what you did totally wrong and stop the bleeding before it wreaks havoc on the rest of your product line.

Jet black.  Carbon fiber covered with sexy black rubber grippy stuff.  The envy of every cinematic  DP. Low Light champion (within reason).  If you want to make a dent in the market share barrel it's time to come out swinging with your "A" game.

And since we're talking marketing it's good to remember that having the right lenses for the job is a big part of the cache of a system.  You've got some big blanks that need filling and it's time to stop depending on Tamron and Sigma to pull the weight for you.  Here's what you need to announce along with the camera:

A 15mm Zeiss wide angle lens.  Make it perfect.  Now you own 15mm.  Next up you've got to have at least one tilt/shift lens.  Don't get crazy and go too wide until you have the 24mm focal length covered.  That's the sweet spot for discriminating architectural photographers.  Once you've got that one nailed it's time to also think about a 35mm tilt/shift.  It's a great focal length for a lot of stuff that requires perspective control.

How about giving us an updated 20mm prime?  If you want to turn heads let's make it an f2.0 and let's make it right.  We could also use a nice 200mm f2 for those interior sporty moments.

And if you want to make Olympus OMD users cry make the lens hoods really, really wonderful and put them in the boxes for free.

I made Ian at Precision Camera create an "a99" waiting list and put me on the top.  I'll buy one.  It's a whole new camera universe.  Carbon fiber.  That would be cool...

Sunday edit:  It's' coming quicker than we all thought.  According to actual people in the know the camera will be called the a99.  It will be announced next week. I missed the guess on sensors, it will be a 36 megapixel camera and it will most definitely be a fixed mirror SLT design.  Get this: 12 FPS in raw.  Sadly, no carbon fiber...  ISO 100-4,000 (rational thinking prevails..)

The price will either be $2799 US or 2999 US.  Just thought you'd want the update.

Will the DSLR die? Will small cameras rule the world?

   (edit: for people who don't know the basic history of digital cameras:  The camera above is not a film camera, it is a digital camera from Kodak that was marketed in 2001-2002 and was one of the first "affordable" interchangeable lens digital SLR's to offer a whopping 6 megapixels. About $7,000 on introduction.)


I've just read several blogs wherein the writers pose this very question and then take the middle of the road argument that, "there's room in the camera cosmos for everyone..."  Which is a nice way of side-stepping the intellectual honesty of actually taking a stand, but might just be the wrong answer.

Not to enrage the creationists of photography who feel that all cameras are locked into whatever form they exist in now by some edict,  I'd like to make the case that, in order to survive, today's big, hungry and macho DSLRs will evolve by co-opting the best features of their current predators and keeping the goofy and lovable features that marketers think we all want...

I think that much of what we accept as necessary in a "professional digital single lens reflex camera" is there via precedent, vestigialism and ritual.  Most of the voodoo of bigger SLR's is based on what we needed in the early days of digital.

Consider this, in 2002 if you wanted a camera to shoot with professionally at six megapixels (or thereabouts), with the capability of changing lenses (itself partially a conceit from the primitive film days...) and the throughput or frame rate to follow even rudimentary action (buffer), you had very, very few choices.  In fact, you had the Nikon D1x and the Kodak DCS760.  Both were large body styles.  You had to be happy with a large body style because no one had anything else on offer with the same features.  Really.  So, marketers presumed in their "looking forward calculus" that, since the big bodies were selling well (remember, they were the only form factor widely available with the feature sets needed) consumers must like the big bodies and therefore it was good marketing to offer more big bodies in the future.  No matter that the cameras were widely considered to be too heavy and too unwieldy to be comfortable...especially for most woman and men with smaller hands...

It's kind of like being GM in the 1960's and presuming that everyone needed a big, V8 motor because you built lots of big V8 motors and put them in most of your cars and people bought the cars, ergo they must want big V8 motors.  And would never change.

I look at the Kodak DCS 760 as one of the seminal, professional, digital cameras because, well, Kodak (using big Nikon bodies and making them even bigger) was there first.  And since some of them sold well their competitors, not wanting to take chances, followed suit.  I think the first few generations of Kodak digital behemoth cameras were big not because the engineers wanted them to be but because nearly every part, including the electronics, was made by hand and breadboarded circuits take up a lot more space than VLSIs.  I also think the engineers were constrained to use a certain body size in order to accomodate the enormous (relative to today's technology) primitive batteries and the large sized industry standard connectors of the day.  Not to mention the big, dual slots required for PCMCIA memory constructs.

So, in early big camera engineering form indeed followed function.  Now form follows convention.  Form is following history.  Form is part of marketing that plays on a nostalgia for the past in the field of cameras, to the detriment of your pocket book.

My Kodak DCS760 batteries weigh more than my entire Panasonic G3.  One PCMCIA hard drive is bigger than the biggest LCD screen on my best camera. And yet those cameras didn't shoot faster than my current consumer cameras, didn't have as big buffers, don't have the same resolutions and on and on.

I fully believe that Canon and Nikon could both make a camera with the same capabilities as their D3's, D4's and 1DX's, etc. that are much smaller than the ones they currently make, without making any engineering sacrifices.  Same waterproofing, same basic handling and the same performance but they choose to make them big to connote their level of professionalism.  Size is now analogous to the fins on a sedan or raw horsepower.  Making the cameras bigger and heavier adds to the weight and the cost but not to the usability for most buyers.

In the ten years since the introduction of the big professional digital cameras the top models have remained the same size and weight even as technology has advanced considerably in every metric.  The batteries have ten times the capacity of the early ones (measuring in shutter actuations).  They weigh less than half of their predecessors.  SD cards hold hundreds of times more files and write them thousands of times more quickly than their predecessors. And the engineers have had a decade to leverage the efficiencies of scale for processors, shutter mechanisms, etc.  So why do people still think they need to tote a brick to be taken seriously?

Well, as I said above, I think we're about to see the big dinosaurs evolve instead of just capitulating and becoming instantaneously extinct.  If the camera makers are smart they'll make "smaller" a new luxury feature (as Pentax did with their LX system back in the days of film...).  You're already seeing that in coveted cameras like the Fuji X1-Pro.

The next step (look to Sony)  will be for Canon and Nikon to "reinvent" the finder.  They'll move to EVFs but they'll rename the EVF and make it a professional feature.  A "must have" for pros who need to see all the information.  How will they sell it?  With fear and uncertainty.  You'll hear over and over again that all still photography is  nearly dead (and it might nearly be for commercial applications) and that you MUST be shooting video and "we're putting this EVF here to help  you be successful!!!!!"  And, they'll create (make up) some new feature set that can be construed to be even better than seeing stuff through an "outdated" OVF.  You watch them.  When they tip the point for sports shooters the marketing will go into overdrive and no one will ever want to go back to the "bad old days" of glass pentaprisms ever again.  Not because 99% of buyers need what sports photographers profess to need but because halo advertising works...

The next thing to go will be the mirror.  No need for a mirror if you're looking at the image directly as it appears to the sensor.  Right?  But again, it will be couched as an advantage because of "high speed performance" metrics.  Faster and more reliable.  Who doesn't want that?  Nikon has already mastered the focusing issues in their lowly V system.  They'll roll it up (as they always do) into their pro-sumer and then pro cameras just as quickly as they think you're ready for it....from a marketing point of view.

In a short time we'll have a professional, weather-sealed, mirrorless, EVF'd live view camera with a full frame sensor and a whole raft of new marketing "miracles."  How about this information that lens designers have known for decades? :  The shorter the flange to film plane distance the easier it is to design higher performance lenses.   And it's true.  The moving mirror made/makes for many optical and mechanical compromises.  Another linchpin for marketing.

Think it will never, never happen?  Look to the moving picture industry where real money changes hands.  Real directors and their directors of photography (DP's)  have abandoned the moving shutter, moving film cameras of just a decade ago to embrace (now 50% or more of all new movie production) digital video cameras with EVF's and direct-to-sensor technology.

So, the process will look more like evolution.  It might start with a lowly Canon Rebel Eyeview.  That camera will use an EVF because it's cheaper to build and looks bigger and better than the current tunnel vision optical finders on entry level cameras.  The consumer sees a bigger image.  And it's brighter!  And the camera is lighter! And it's a little smaller so it fits in a purse or a man bag.  And the marketing...

A giant campaign.  NOW YOU DON'T NEED  SEPARATE CAMERAS FOR VIDEO AND PHOTOS.  THIS ONE CAN DO IT ALL!!!!! Make a movie, shot an ad.  And the ads will extol being able to see what you get, before you even get it.  Once the great mass of the market speaks with their Visa cards the prosumer market will follow.  And when people embrace the new products the pro stuff will come out at the next big sports event (Formula One?  World Cup? The Superbowl?) with tremendous and heartfelt testimonials from a whole new generation of content creators, who will gush about being able to follow action at 15fps with no vibration, while seeing a perfect image and never loosing an opportunity because of the ability to pre-chimp!

Blogging photographers are just as susceptible to nostalgia and tradition as everyone else.  We grew up with a certain form factor and we're well acculturated to believe it's the holy grail of camera designs.  But we actually exist in a giant swirling cosmos of alternate designs that are presaged on the evolution of technology as well as consumer taste.  When the vast majority of buyers used point and shoot cameras as their daily recorders of events and milestones the DSLR was seen as the "step up" to professional quality.  Working photographers knew that the medium format cameras were the magic beans.  Now the vast, vast majority of people who snap photographs do so with cellphones. Even for rudimentary business use.  Their perception of stepping up, big time, in quality is to step up to a 16 megapixel camera with interchangeable lenses. (the interchange of lenses being the driving metric...).  And now the momentum goes to the mirrorless sector.

And, ultimately, we have to look at our societal shift for every image's final destination.  The prevailing use is also fundamental in determining the form.  (Form still follows function).  If the end destination is a screen, even a high res screen, then ultimate image quality is no longer the marketing driver.  If photography is becoming relentlessly homogenized then sophistication of the instruments takes a back seat to convenience and functionality.  That means using equipment that's easier to handle and easier to shoot with.  It also means that fast access to the web trumps ultimates in image size and resolution.s

As the number of full time professional photographers relentlessly shrinks more and more photography will be that of opportunity.  And I think you'll agree that opportunity favors those who have A camera with them over those who own incredible stuff that requires multiple sherpas for transport.

Finally, there really is a melding of video and still photography in the image making of generations under us. My readers and I represent generations that straddled the shift between film and digital.  Most of us (not all, I get that) had opened up the back of a film camera and dropped in a roll of something and made sure the film was progressing through our cameras as we shot.  But we also were there for the birth of widespread digital and if we are honest with ourselves we can see the thread of yet another change that is all about the rejection of a useful but used up paradigm of "Big, Expensive, Complex" that is being replaced by a new paradigm of "Small, Agile, Useful, Egalitarian."  Especially if the quality is maintained at a constant.

If you really think that we'll never de-embrace from big, OVF, professional DSLRs try a bit of introspection and after some painful probing you might find that it's the mastery of past camera and photography traditions and the growing irrelevance of those mastered traditions that causes us to emotionally reject the inevitable evolution.

Finally,  I don't want to get side tracked by sensor arguments. I've written a lot here but I am NOT making the argument that we all will be using smaller sensor cameras.  Not at all.  Sensor size is a whole other issue and one that still speaks to aesthetic elements of the differentials.  I won't deny that a larger sensor camera has different "drawing" characteristics (based on object distance and depth of field, combined).  I'm presuming that Nikon and Canon and Sony and Pentax will also come out with evolutionary, EVF, mirrorless cameras that use all three of the major, consumer sensor sizes just as I am certain that medium format digital will continue to sell to service the tiny subset of user for whom perfection and ultimate control trump issues of size, cost and usability.

No one is trying to pry your hands off a full frame (e35mm) sensor.  We're just gently suggesting that form factor changes, driven by technology, are inevitable.  Just as cellphones shrank from big ugly boxes in cars to slender, pocketable products while expanding their power at the same time.

It's fun to be in the middle of a swirling set of changes.  Never fun when your own "ox" gets gored but change is amoral and nothing if not anti-nostalgic.  We'll get over it if we have the intellectual strength to change with our culture.